My conclusion: Economics needs to become a non-equilibrium social science that embraces importance of institutions, culture [rhetoric?], networks, endogenous technology, structure, as well as the individual. It is an information science where the relevance of complexity is central. Time must be acknowledged not masked by fantastic tricks, and where asymmetries of all sorts are the norm not the exception. An economy changes itself as surely as the people within it adapt to their ever changing environment. They shape and are shaped by that environment, so feedback keeps the whole thing moving along. It is a learning device where we both discover and create solutions to everyday problems. It is driven by both competition and cooperation. It sits within, not without, society as a whole. It is melange of energy, resources, and knowledge that we configure and re-configure to satisfy our needs. And it is a process whereby we explore the potential of that melange and translate potential into possible, and then into actual, ways to satisfy those needs, whilst recognizing we are creating needs as we go along. It is thus open ended, procedural, dynamic, and intensely human. In other words it is evolutionary.Real-World Economics Review Blog
A response to Robert Locke
Peter Radford
How about this time we consider the ethics of money creation? Or is that asking too much?
ReplyDeleteYes, probably. Ya see, honesty is the best policy except some how it isn't when it comes to money creation.